There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. 1. Originally coined for Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol. 2nd use of this term came after 9/11 which was Bush's "You are either with us or you are against us".

After Iraq, the Bush Doctorine came to mean "Preemtive War" and this is what Gibson THOUGHT it meant. The Bush Doctorine has currently come to mean "the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world." which came out of Bush's second inaugural address. So pretty much Gibson goofed, & Palin actually had it right.

Even Charles Krauthammer, the guy who first coined the term "Bush Doctrine", says Palin got it right and Gibson is an assclown:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

Torture, kidnapping of citizens, illegal wiretapping, unitary executive. These are funny. Pardon me while I masturbate onto a book I'm about to burn while sending all my money to the 700 club after my neighbors are arrested and tortured. :)

Press (-) to plug your ears and scream, "It could never happen here!" Continue doing it as more journalists are detained without probable cause, citizens hit with peppersrpay and beaten in the street, et cetera. Also c*cks.

Before Bush you could block streets and burns cars without getting peppersprayed? Like Reagan said, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

although that equation would debunk Bobdole23's comment at first glance, fuzzhammer, you did not take into account the fact that more people voted for Al Gore than they did for George W Bush. Therefore, Al Gore (baptist) = won election. George W Bush (methodist) = lost election, but decided to take the presidency anyway. So that could basically come down to methodist = tyranic f*ckheads and baptist = too pussy to push back?

2000 Al Gore: no majority in popular vote, lost in the electoral college. 2004 George Bush: majority of popular vote, won the electoral college. Facts are facts -- Gore didn't win sh*t in 2000 and has been banished to pimping a sourceless PowerPoint presentation to college kids around America.

Bush won a majority of the popular vote in 2004 merely because no major third party had a candidate in the election. Winning with 49% or 50.01% is incosequential. He won with only a 2.5% edge, making his victory the closest incumbent presidential victory in the history of the US (Wilson won reelection in 1916 by 3.2%). He then claimed a sweeping mandate, then got to sit back and watch his policy proposals (ie. social security privatization) get roundly rejected by the public.

derpallardie: "Winning with 49% or 50.01% is incosequential." Actually it's the basis of the entire electoral process, so you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. (Vicariously, it's also the reason there will only ever be two major political parties in America.) Maybe you shouldn't sleep through your American Government class next time. Unless you have 50% + 1 vote, you don't win jack sh*t. So Al Gore didn't win the popular vote, or more importantly, the electoral vote in 2000. Get over it.

the8ball: Unless you have 50% + 1 vote, you don't win jack sh*t.
By this logic W was not elected in 2000. Clinton was not elected in 92 or 96. Nixon was not elected in 68. I can go on. '50% +1 vote' is meaningless given third parties run for office. Example: New Mexico, 2000. Bush and Gore both won 48% of the vote, with the edge in total votes going to Gore. 4% of the vote was for other candidates. Gore, having the most votes, won New Mexico's 5 electoral votes.

derpallardie: Okay, you clearly have sh*t for brains. Despite that, I'm not going to retype the facts again if you're too stupid to comprehend them. Please continue to not vote in the general election, because it's abundantly clear you've never been in a voting booth before.

the8ball: So are Obama's credentials, but the stupid Democrats put him FIRST on the ticket. Methinks they should've rethought that one.
Nice straw man.
Obama has identical experience to that of Lincoln in 1860. Given the competition, though, not voting with Bush 95% of the time might be the only credential he needs.

derpallardie: Well I see you have your "Obama For Dummies" book handy. Lincoln wasn't black or a Socialist, so Obama's credentials are hardly "identical" to his. And you got your propaganda quote wrong, McCain claimed to vote with Bush 90% of the time, not 95%. Which is funny, since presidents DON'T VOTE in the legislature.

Presidents don't vote, but they do often indicate their position on pending legislation. In cases where W has done so, McCain has been on his side 90%. There's also tape of McCain attesting to this, and using the construction "I voted with the President".

Lincoln actually had less experience in national politics than Obama at the time of his election (one two-year term in the House and a losing U.S. Senate race) but more importantly, they both demonstrated courage and mental acuity, and therefore the readiness for the job of President, by opposing popular but boneheaded policies.

Dominated, really? That's funny, cuz she answered the question correctly. The term "Bush Doctrine" is a vague, manufactured journalistic term that nobody uses to describe his view on foreign policy, i.e. his world view.

really? are you guys this f*cking stupid?
The "Bush Doctrine" is a CONSERVATIVE term invented by Bush's STAFF that explains the various policies he undertook after 9/11. You are an idiot if you think this is a "manufactured journalistic" phrase. Fail at politics, fail at life, 8ball.

hey here's an idea, lets ban and burn books, then when were done with that let's regulate the internet, so no more YTMND. raped by brian peppers and now you have his baby, oh but abortion is illegal, so your life sucks now. oh and let's drill more offshore, because it sounds real nice, but it won't have an impact for at least 10 years.